I never said it was but the point I was making was that for America to Condem Iraq's invasion of Kuwait after prticipating in one of the bloodiest wars without just (in my perception of it at least) cause, in the last 50 years is Hypocracy.
Yes, it is indeed hypocrisy, but who cares? As long as you can make people believe that it is true all is well, and the common man can be tricked easily. The problem here was that the true cause behind it was not really in American long-term interests.
For debate to actually exist, common ground must be found and I'd like to hope that everyone in this discussion at least shares the basic rudimentary values that civilisation has, rightly or wrongly, precieved as right and wrong over the course of history (aka. death should be avoided, happiness should be obtained not at the expense of others etc.).
Well I never assume such things, because everyone in the world will have their own idea of morals and a logically consistent conclusion cannot arise from contradictory assumptions.
Was war declared because Vietnamese Communism was genuinely precieved as a threat or just through hatred of their Ideals?
Most likely it was hatred of the ideals. Like I said earlier, I do agree with you that the US should have stayed out of that conflict, but for different reasons.
Now applying that logic we could of course say that Al Quaeda are not morally wrong, just have interests that conflict with that of the United states and most non religious Zealots. These ideas obviously confict more radically than most. But it's clearly in America's interest to defend itself to ensure that noithing like this ever happens again minimizing casualties as much as possible. The question is "Has America done enough now to prevent such an attack?".
The answer to that is: of course not. Even if the US completely wipes out every other nation out there they would not have done "enough" to prevent such a thing. I would say that getting rid of anti-US administrations in these nations and installing pro-Western guys (even if they are just as "morally bad") is good enough in practice. And yes, that is exactly the logic I am using, because it is the most objective way of thinking about such things.
Pat Buchanan
this guy is quite a character.
I've said this time and time again Vietnam. Is the most blatant example, then there's other examples where "invasion of its neighbors, or imperialist expansion by other powers" has been tolerated, encouraged and supoported by america.
Sure it has, and that is perfectly fine if they are doing it in their own interest in the end. All of the instances that the US supported outside nations in imperialistic behavior was when they were its allies so to keep friendly relations with them.
Even if it means arming Fanatics. It was well known that the people who were armed were not rational but as long as it prevents the expansion of communism or Un friendly nation then It's worth all the suffereing inflicted on the population by heavily armed madmen.
Of course it does! Everything done by a sensible nation is in the interest of that nation only. This time, I like the means but not the end - the anti-communist craze was unfounded.
It's none of our business what Saddam does in his own country- he took it over, the people are still the majority, if they wanted him out they'd throw him out.
Everything and nothing is everyone's business.
but how the younger generation has been so thoroughly convinced that the US is "oppressive" is baffling to me.
It is mostly likely because the US has become successful; if you have heard of Schumpeter's methods, it can be seen from that why people criticize it.
And regarding this issue of government intervention in private affairs, when you get down to it in the end, what individuals do is certainly the government's business to maintain a productive society. If everyone in the nation started to use some new narcotic drug and everyone started dying, should the administration just stand by? The only society that can give complete freedom to its people is no society at all, or in other words, an anarchy, which in turn would stall the progress of knowledge. Stop thinking of individuals and society dualistically.
